ARTICLE 7: CONVERT CENTER STREET C2 GD AND WOLFEBORO FALLS C1 TO A NEW DISTRICT NAMED THE WOLFEBORO FALLS LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT WFLBD

Yes 857
No 403

ARTICLE 8: CHAPTER 65, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Yes 1,064
No 227

ARTICLE 9: SHOREFRONT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Yes 886
No 395

ARTICLE 10: ADD A NEW SECTION, 175-xxx GROUP HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT

Yes 531No 746

ARTICLE 11: Structural Repairs at the Public Safety Building

Yes 1,062 (79%)
No 279 (21%)

ARTICLE 12: Acquisition of Property at 255 South Main Street

Yes 1,067 (79%)
No 279 (21%)

ARTICLE 13: Wastewater Facility Upgrades

Yes 984 (74%)
No 348 (26%)

ARTICLE 14: Downtown Streets Upgrade—Phase 3

Yes 1,085 (81%)
No 260 (19%)

ARTICLE 15: Construct Glendon Street Parking Lot

Yes 935 (69%)
No 415 (31%)

ARTICLE 16: Water Meter Upgrades

Yes 825 (62%)
No 511 (38%)

ARTICLE 17: 2012 Operating Budget

Yes 977 (74%)
No 350 (26%)

ARTICLE 18: Construct Bath House at Albee Beach

Yes 960 (71%)
No 391 (29%)

ARTICLE 19: Town Hall Repairs and Improvements

Yes 752 (56%)
No 587 (44%)

ARTICLE 20: Interim Town Office Space (Citizen Petition)

Yes 442 (34%)No 863 (66%)

ARTICLE 21: Upgrade Town Roads

Yes 1,110 (84%)
No 211 (16%)

ARTICLE 22: Public Safety Radio Communications Equipment

Yes 1,069 (81%)
No 249 (19%)

ARTICLE 23: Police Union Contract Agreement

Yes 1,019 (78%)
No 294 (22%)

ARTICLE 24: Drinking Water Treatment Facility Chemical Feed System

Yes 1,129 (86%)
No 181 (14%)

ARTICLE 25: Drinking Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency Upgrades

Yes 1,102 (84%)
No 209 (16%)

ARTICLE 26: Develop Asset Management Program

Yes 500 (39%)No 784 (61%)

ARTICLE 27: Fire Trucks and Apparatus Replacement Capital Reserve

Yes 989 (74%)
No 345 (26%)

ARTICLE 28: Public Works Vehicles and Equipment Capital Reserve

Yes 955 (72%)No 363 (28%)

ARTICLE 29: Establish Recreation Revolving Account

Yes 1,056 (81%)
No 253 (19%)

ARTICLE 30: Citizens’ Petition

a) Do you support restoration of Brewster Memorial Hall to serve as Town Offices?
Yes 627 (48%), No 680 (52%)
b) Do you support building new Town Offices?
Yes 518 (41%), No 756 (59%)
c) Do you support leasing space for Town Offices?
Yes 422 (34%), No 812 (66%)
d) Do you favor rehabilitation of Brewster Memorial Hall;
1. By taxpayers as the sole financial support?
Yes 215 (19%), No 906 (81%)
2. By private funds as the sole financial support?
Yes 497 (45%), No 603 (55%)
3. By a combination of taxpayer and private funds? Yes 622 (51%), No 598 (49%)
e) Do you support selling Brewster Memorial Hall?
Yes 583 (46%), No 679 (54%)

4 Responses to Town Meeting Results (short form)

I was quite interested in the BMH issues, and I find the poll results somewhat confusing.

It is good that a majority voted against restoration. This would be a bad idea in good times, but it is a terrible idea in times like these. Hopefully the “no” votes on restoration AND on use of taxpayer funds as sole support for same mean that the Selectmen will finally give up on this idea.

I understand that there were legitimate arguments against leasing space, at least as presented (I voted “yes”). But if we don’t lease, don’t restore BMH, and don’t build new town offices, that leaves our valuable employees in a terrible situation.

It is my hope that new leadership for our town will emerge that can move past the now dead idea of restoring BMH as town hall and can convince the voters that a new facility for all town business is the best way forward. Perhaps we will have a contest next year for seats on the Board of Selectmen that will revolve around this issue.

I find it very discomforting that the voters who did show up defeated Article 26 (Asset Management) by 61% and Article 31 (Municipal Complex Consideration) by 60%, but approved the Albee Beach bathhouse article by 71%. Seems like we have our priorties a little backwards. I may be wrong here, but the bathhouse thing is a seasonal use location, but a minicipal complex can/would be a 24/7 use location. Must be me, but I base my expenditures on the “value for money” concept.

If we continue to throw tax dollars at “beyond useful service life” public safety-public works-town office buildings without at least exploring the very long term benefits of sound municipal asset management then the “Jewel of the Lake” will start to look like The End of the Line.

My goodness, where is the vision? What is attractive about being trapped in quicksand?

“Vision” comes with sound and responsible governance, something that we do not have. Look at the poster child for that, the sewers. We allowed our sewer system to fail for years (read the 57 pages of documentation on the State order) , until the State put the moratorium in place. Then we tried to rush to judegement on snow making until the people said no. Then the BOS told us infiltration basins was the sure cure. We spent millions on it and now find it doesn’t work because we didn’t have a good Architect/Engineer who could do proper soil analysis but rather chose the good ol’ boys who have always done the Town’s work. Then after all is said and done, the BOS firmly refused to do any investigation/analysis of the root cause that allowed all this to take place so we are ripe for it to happen again. Look at the Electric Department. The Town wanted a $400K bond to clean up Lehner Street facility until a citizen warrant created public commission showed we had millions in cash surplus in the department. Under the light of day, the BOS was forced to use some of that money, rather than seek new funds from taxpayers.

We don’t have good governance because, as we saw of this ballot, nobody wants to run for office. It will take huge increases in the tax bills to make anyone pay attention. The few hundred folks diligent to seek the story behind the story and are informed, cannot out vote the majority that believe the Town Manager and the BOS really know what they are doing. Like the old farmer and his mule, the mule won’t change until acted upon by an outside force (2×4 between the eyes in the form of much higher taxes) and that is a way off yet.

As in the past, I find myself sort of agreeing with John. He brings up two different yet equally significant issues:

Voter apathy is the symptom that we see in poor voter turnout and failure to attract candidates to participate in government. All I can say is that this is an old and epidemic problem that exists at all levels of our government. We could go on and on about possible reasons for it, but suffice it to say that it’s a pretty predictable part of the game and, and like all games, there are players and spectators. Here’s a list I found of voter turnout by country. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Information availability is another issue. To their credit, the town has done a lot, actually, to improve that. The town web site contains a wealth of information at your fingertips that was previously difficult to obtain. Minutes of all meetings and even streaming video of all BOS and many other committees is a big step. There are limitations to what can be provided through a website, but I don’t think we are testing those limits yet. The newspaper, while not neutral source in the classic sense, has a place. Think Fox News. But you really have to use the Right to Know law to get to the bottom of things.

So my position is that the system is far from perfect, and providing counterpoint is my contribution. Whether people agree with me or not, it opens up the issues and hopefully causes a few more people to question the status quo.